Advice Academic Misconduct This information is accurate as of January 2017
1
Academic Misconduct A summary This information sheet is for Undergraduate and Postgraduate students This summary is intended as an outline only, and should be read in conjunction with the University Academic Misconduct regulations: •
http://www.gold.ac.uk/governance/assessmentregulations/
goldsmithscollegeassessmentguidanceandprocedures/6assessmentmisconduct/ •
http://www.gold.ac.uk/governance/assessmentregulations/
What is Academic Misconduct? Academic misconduct is defined by Goldsmiths’ College as any attempt by a student to gain an unfair advantage in any form of assessment. The term ‘academic misconduct’ includes all forms of cheating, plagiarism, and collusion.
Plagiarism This is the most common form of academic misconduct. It falls broadly into two areas:
1.
Poor referencing. Examples of these are:
- a student takes the work of another person or source, and uses it without quotation marks and citation of the original source; - summarises another person’s work by simply changing a few words or altering the order of presentation, without citation; - uses work obtained from the internet without acknowledgement of the original source; - includes unattributed digital images such as graphs, tables, photographs, etc. taken from books/articles, the internet or from the work of another person, without reference to the original source;
2.
- uses someone else’s idea (intellectual data) as if it were their own.
Duplication. Examples of these are:
- a student resubmits a piece of work which has previously been assessed for a different award or module or at a different institution as if it were new work; - self-plagiarizes their own work by reutilising previously submitted work without proper acknowledgement.
http://www.goldsmithssu.org/advice
This information is accurate as of January 2017
2 To avoid plagiarism the sources you use must be correctly cited and referenced. To make this process easier, it is possible to use software designed specifically to manage your references, such as EndNote Web and Zotero. More guidelines on how to reference your work and which referencing style is used by your department can be found here: http://www.gold.ac.uk/library/research-referencing-skills/
Other forms of Academic Misconduct • Bribery, or paid services: submission of work that the student bought
from an essay procurement website, or offering a bribe to another university member to obtain a copy of an assignment question before its official distribution.
• Collusion: submission of work done in collaboration with another person as
if it were entirely the student’s own work. Collusion does not apply in the case of the submission of group projects, or assessments that are intended to be produced collaboratively.
• Misleading material: inclusion of data which has been invented or obtained by
unfair means; for example, falsifying the results of questionnaires or interviews.
• Cheating: any irregular behaviour during an examination such as the
unauthorised possession of notes; attempting to give or receive help in an exam; the copying of another student’s work; submitting work that is not your own; the unauthorised obtaining of examination papers.
What happens if an allegation of Academic Misconduct is made against me? The Head of Department, or the nominated senior academic, will write to you and specify when you would be expected to respond (this is usually within 7 days of the date of the letter). Students should respond explaining what happened and submit any extenuating circumstances to be taken in to account in case a penalty is imposed. The evidence and your response will be considered and if academic misconduct has occurred, either A or B can be the course of action:
A)
misconduct was due to a minor or technical incidence – no hearing
required. The Head of department should notify you in writing and: http://www.goldsmithssu.org/advice
This information is accurate as of January 2017
3 3.1 meet with you and issue a formal warning, that may be considered in the event of any future offence; 3.2 you will be required to read and sign the Academic Misconduct Statement and study the online good academic practice tutorial available on learn.gold; 3.3 you will have to resubmit the work within 3-5 days, appropriately referenced without any additional changes to the substance of the submission. At this point you will either: • accept the penalty applied and meet the terms of their continued study, or; • request a review of the decision at a hearing.
B) investigation appropriate – you will be invited by letter to attend a hearing. You will be given a chance at the meeting to explain your side of the story (you can ask an SU Adviser to accompany you for support). The Hearing Panel would decide whether academic misconduct has occurred and the appropriate penalty should be applied.
Penalties These penalties will be applied on the basis of whether: • the hearing believes the plagiarism is moderate, severe or very severe. • it is a first offence • you are an undergraduate / postgraduate student. Suggested penalties can be: 4.1 subtract ten percentage marks from the final mark for the module overall; 4.2 a mark of zero for the element of the module (the retake is penalised); 4.3 a mark of zero for all elements of the module (the retake is penalised); 4.4 the minimum pass mark for the module; 4.5 degree class to be reduced by one class; 4.6 degree class to be ‘capped’ at a certain level; 4.7 suspension from College (an interruption of one academic year); 4.8 a mark of zero be awarded for the module, and an exit award to be given on the basis of credits already achieved; 4.9 withdrawal without award of a degree or exit award (earned credits can be recorded). http://www.goldsmithssu.org/advice
This information is accurate as of January 2017
4 1. Undergraduate Policies Level of offence being considered
First Offence
Repeated Offence
Minor or Technical
3.1, 3.2 and 3.3
3.3 and 4.4
Moderate
3.3 and 4.1
4.5
Severe
3.3 and 4.2 or 4.3
4.6 or 4.7
Very Severe
3.3 and 4.3 or 4.4
4.7 or 4.8
2. Postgraduate Taught Penalties Level of offence being considered
First Offence
Repeated Offence
Minor
4.2
4.5
Moderate
4.3 or 4.4
4.6 or 4.8
Severe
4.5 or 4.6
4.9
Very Severe
4.8
4.9
Level of offence being considered
First Offence
Repeated Offence
Minor
4.7
4.9
Moderate
4.7
4.9
Severe
4.9
Very Severe
4.9
3. Postgraduate Research Penalties
http://www.goldsmithssu.org/advice
This information is accurate as of January 2017
5 Definitions of Level of Offence Minor or Technical: • Poor referencing • Incorrect (or an absence of) attribution for copied work inserted in an assignment • Paraphrasing without adequate attribution Moderate: • Ideas or concepts which appear to originate from the student but are in fact the work of others, not fully referenced, cited or otherwise acknowledged as required • Work that is inappropriately paraphrased or directly quoted without speech marks and is not referenced • Identical or closely related work and ideas to another assignment previously submitted by the student • Minor infringement of the examination venue rules (as set out in the conduct of examination rules) Severe: • Plagiarism extending to a substantial proportion of the work • Falsifying some data or evidence • Cheating in an examination • Taking notes relevant to the examination in to the examination halls (unless their use is explicitly permitted s part of the examination) • Using an electronic device to access data or calculations in an examination*. Very Severe: • Commissioning work from someone else • Copying the work of another student • Collusion with other students to produce a piece of work as if it was an individual student’s own work • Falsifying the majority of data or evidence • Impersonation of a student in an examination
http://www.goldsmithssu.org/advice
This information is accurate as of January 2017
6 Appealing Penalties If you want to appeal the penalty imposed after a hearing, you must submit a challenge in writing within 7 days of notification of the decision of the Chair of the Board of Examiners. The challenge must be based on one or more of these grounds: • procedural irregularity in the hearing; • fresh evidence can be presented which could not reasonably have been made available to the hearing (NB: extenuating circumstances are not normally considered as valid grounds for a challenge) • there is evidence of prejudice or bias on the part of the person conducting the hearing. If the challenge is found to have valid grounds, the case will be reviewed and in some circumstances a hearing may be convened.
Pursuing your case further If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the challenge, you would need to go to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA).
Contact Us Visit us on the Goldsmiths Students’ Union website and click on Advice or contact us via e-mail: advice@goldsmithssu.org.
http://www.goldsmithssu.org/advice
This information is accurate as of January 2017